Discovery of Overlooked Ballots

[J. J.]

Okay. If the bylaws don't require a ballot vote, I think you can breathe now.

 

For conducting a secret ballot via mail, RONR suggests the "double envelope" method for verification, in which the inner envelope (rather than the ballot itself) is signed. This enables verification without sacrificing the secrecy of the member's vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 424-425 for more information.

 

It is correct that the assembly should never require that a member sign the ballot itself in a secret ballot, since the ballot is then no longer secret, as the tellers will know how the member voted.

 

 

Josh, if the bylaws do permit absentee votes, not could not be suspended.  Stop beathing, again. 

[Josh Martin]

Josh, if the bylaws do permit absentee votes, not could not be suspended.  Stop beathing, again. 

 

Would you like to explain where you're going with this?

[Guest Julie]

People are now asking to know which members cast votes.  We do have a record of those who cast votes, as the homeowners were required to sign in by lot # as they submitted their ballot, to ensure that, as our bylaws require, only one ballot was cast per household.. Can the list of those who voted just be given to any member who asks?  Does it require a vote of the membership first?  Assuming that the information is not just "public information", what, exactly, should be done with that list?  Should it be kept with the sealed ballots?  Shredded?  Trying to handle these requests while holding my breath is becoming difficult.....  

[Josh Martin]

Can the list of those who voted just be given to any member who asks? Does it require a vote of the membership first?

 

Only the membership can grant this request.

 

Assuming that the information is not just "public information", what, exactly, should be done with that list?  Should it be kept with the sealed ballots?  Shredded?

 

I'd keep it with the sealed ballots and destroy it along with the ballots when that time comes.

[sMargaret]

I have to admit that I'm surprised all 9 ballots that had been missed were all presumably for one candidate each.

 

Do the election coordinators still have a job as being election coordinators? It is the assembly that should decide on these questions.

 

The tellers report should be public, and put into the minutes in full, but whether or not the tellers report should contain a list of the lot #s would be up to your organization - do the bylaws refer to that, by any chance?

[Josh Martin]

I have to admit that I'm surprised all 9 ballots that had been missed were all presumably for one candidate each.

 

How do you figure that?

[sMargaret]

Originally there were 73 votes cast, and a majority was 37.  Of the 10 candidates running, 8 received 37 or more votes, so were on the board.  When the 9 additional votes were discovered that meant 82 votes were cast, so majority was 42, and at the recount only 5 people received 42 or more votes.  So 3 of the originally elected board members lost their positions as a result of the 9 original ballots.

 

There were 10 candidates on the ballot.  Each member could vote for as many (or as few) of the candidates as they wished.

 

There were originally 73 votes cast, and then they added the 9 additional votes, from the 9 additional ballots, to come up with 82 votes cast. It's quite possible to have happened; certainly there wasn't a requirement that all 10 possible votes on each ballot would be cast - but it seems odd, and makes me wonder if anything was done that might have invalidated the whole election.

[Josh Martin]

There were originally 73 votes cast, and then they added the 9 additional votes, from the 9 additional ballots, to come up with 82 votes cast. It's quite possible to have happened; certainly there wasn't a requirement that all 10 possible votes on each ballot would be cast - but it seems odd, and makes me wonder if anything was done that might have invalidated the whole election.

 

My understanding was that each ballot was being counted as a "vote cast," since this is an election for multiple identical positions.

[Bruce Lages]

People are now asking to know which members cast votes.  We do have a record of those who cast votes, as the homeowners were required to sign in by lot # as they submitted their ballot, to ensure that, as our bylaws require, only one ballot was cast per household.. Can the list of those who voted just be given to any member who asks?  Does it require a vote of the membership first?  Assuming that the information is not just "public information", what, exactly, should be done with that list?  Should it be kept with the sealed ballots?  Shredded?  Trying to handle these requests while holding my breath is becoming difficult.....  

 

I can't see any reason why a list of which members actually voted should be made available to anyone other than the tellers. Having your members sign in by lot number when submitting  their ballots sounds analogous to members signing the inner envelope in RONR's double envelope method. But once the eligiblity of the member and confirmation that only one ballot was submitted have been verified, the identity of each member who submitted a ballot would seem to be immaterial. Consider also that a member may submit a ballot and still not vote, exercising his right to abstain by submitting a blank ballot.

 

Why would people want to know who voted?

[J. J.]

Would you like to explain where you're going with this?

 

 

There is a right to vote, and these individuals were deprived of the right to cast their votes. 

[Josh Martin]

There is a right to vote, and these individuals were deprived of the right to cast their votes. 

 

Right, but if they do the recount there shouldn't be a problem, yes?

 

If the assembly refuses to do the recount for some reason, I agree that there would be grounds for a Point of Order on that issue.

[Guest Julie]

Only the membership can grant this request.

 

 

I'd keep it with the sealed ballots and destroy it along with the ballots when that time comes.

This sounds reasonable.  Thanks.

[Guest Julie H]

My understanding was that each ballot was being counted as a "vote cast," since this is an election for multiple identical positions.

That is correct.  There were 82 ballots cast (73 + 9), each of which could have had anywhere from zero to 10 actual votes for the individual candidates.

[Guest Julie]

Why would people want to know who voted?

That's what we're wondering, too.  If/when the request comes again, we'll ask them.  We'll also inform them that the membership needs to vote to allow them to see the list.

 

Do the election coordinators still have a job as being election coordinators? It is the assembly that should decide on these questions.

 

The tellers report should be public, and put into the minutes in full, but whether or not the tellers report should contain a list of the lot #s would be up to your organization - do the bylaws refer to that, by any chance?

The Election Coordinators do not still have a job.  Their job ended (although they didn't know it at the time) when the results were announced at the meeting.

 

The tellers report has been sent to the board, for inclusion in the minutes.  The bylaws make no mention of whether the lot #'s should be included.  In many areas, the bylaws are very vague.

[Guest Julie]

Right, but if they do the recount there shouldn't be a problem, yes?

 

If the assembly refuses to do the recount for some reason, I agree that there would be grounds for a Point of Order on that issue.

Guess I'd better brush up on the RONR Point of Order section!  It's good to know that if the assembly refuses to do the recount, there might be some way to "force" it to happen.

[Guest Julie]

The nine overlooked ballots have not been kept separate.  When the Election Administrators did the recount after discovering the ballots, they had no idea that they were not authorized to do so.   So they did not take care to keep the 9 ballots separate, and in the process of checking and double-checking the recount, the 9 ballots got mixed in with the original 73 ballots, and there is no way to distinguish them now.  Could this invalidate the possibility of having the assembly vote to do a recount?

[J. J.]

Right, but if they do the recount there shouldn't be a problem, yes?

 

If the assembly refuses to do the recount for some reason, I agree that there would be grounds for a Point of Order on that issue.

 

 

Yes.  If their votes are counted, that will solve the problem.

 

BTW, I enjoyed your recent article. 

[Dan Honemann]

The nine overlooked ballots have not been kept separate.  When the Election Administrators did the recount after discovering the ballots, they had no idea that they were not authorized to do so.   So they did not take care to keep the 9 ballots separate, and in the process of checking and double-checking the recount, the 9 ballots got mixed in with the original 73 ballots, and there is no way to distinguish them now.  Could this invalidate the possibility of having the assembly vote to do a recount?

 

If all of the ballots have been securely preserved, it shouldn't make any difference that they have all been mixed in together. In fact, I think it is best this way.

[Guest Julie]

If all of the ballots have been securely preserved, it shouldn't make any difference that they have all been mixed in together. In fact, I think it is best this way.

Okay, thanks.  That's reassuring!

[Gary Novosielski]

That is correct.  There were 82 ballots cast (73 + 9), each of which could have had anywhere from zero to 10 actual votes for the individual candidates.

Well, if it had no votes on it (blank) it would be counted as an abstention, and NOT as a "vote cast".  Therefore, it would not affect the number of votes required for election.